Flavor Analysis - American Chemical Society


Flavor Analysis - American Chemical Societypubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/bk-1998-0705.ch023By developing a fingerprint or...

0 downloads 43 Views 2MB Size

Chapter 23

Downloaded by UNIV OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CRUZ on October 14, 2014 | http://pubs.acs.org Publication Date: September 10, 1998 | doi: 10.1021/bk-1998-0705.ch023

Carbon Isotope Composition of Selected Flavoring Compounds for the Determination of Natural Origin by Gas Chromatography/Isotope Ratio Mass Spectrometer R. A. Culp, J. M . Legato, and E. Otero Center for Applied Isotope Studies, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602-4702 Capillary gas chromatography coupled to an on-line Isotope Ratio Mass Spectrometer (GC/IRMS) is used to determine individual compound δ13C values for selected flavoring mixtures. These mixtures include citrus oils from geographical regions including China, Argentina, Italy, and the United States; peppermint oilsfromOregon; and vanilla extracted from beans grown in geographical regions including Madagascar, Java, Indonesia, and Mexico. The resultant data can be used to generate a fingerprint pattern of the major and ancillary compounds found in these specific flavors. Comparison of these patterns to those of synthetically derivedflavorsor compounds can be applied to establish the authenticity or natural origin of these flavors.

The analytical techniques gas chromatography, thin layer chromatography and atomic absorption spectroscopy have provided researchers the tools to determine authenticity of the component flavors in various foods and beverages (7). More recently, by examining the nuclear structure of the flavor molecules using such techniques as isotope ratio mass spectrometry (2,3), liquid scintillation counting (4-6) and nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy (7) more complex flavor adulteration has been revealed. Each of these techniques has advantages and limitations for authenticity testing. A technique may have high precision and use extremely small samples but lack specificity. When techniques are used in combination, they can be very effective for verifying the true naturalness offlavoringmaterial. The radionuclides C and H can yield undeniable evidence of a flavor compound's synthetic origin when their activities fall below the normal range for botanically derived materials (8-10). The stable isotopes of carbon and hydrogen have been used to substantiate and characterize specific biochemical processes and sources by which botanical products can be defined (11-16). 1 4

260

3

©1998 American Chemical Society In Flavor Analysis; Mussinan, C., et al.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 1998.

Downloaded by UNIV OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CRUZ on October 14, 2014 | http://pubs.acs.org Publication Date: September 10, 1998 | doi: 10.1021/bk-1998-0705.ch023

261

The demand for these techniques has grown from the need to reveal and expose the sophisticated manipulation of synthetic sources to mimic those of natural ones. The economic incentive is present for such manipulation by virtue of the extreme discrepancy between the production costs of natural materials versus their synthetic counterparts and the fact that a large consumer demand for the natural materials exists. Two techniques have recently moved to the forefront by virtue of their ability to detect flavor adulteration. One is compound specific isotope analysis, sometimes abbreviated CSIA or GC/IRMS. This technique combines gas chromatography and isotope ratio mass spectrometry (77-27). The other technique uses nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy (22,23). Both of these techniques can reveal the isotopic abundances of individual compounds or their components in a complex mixture or on certain functional groups on purified compounds. This study seeks to investigate and define the accuracy of the GC/IRMS or compound specific isotope analysis technique for three selected flavoring materials: citrus oils, peppermint oils, and vanilla extracts from natural origins. The vanilla extracts were processed as underivatized and derivatized components to assess and compare the derivatization technique. Derivatization has been shown to be favorable for chromatographic separations in GC/IRMS for compounds such as amino acids, porphyrins, and alkaloids (24-26). The stable carbon isotope ratios and concentrations of the primary constituents from each flavor material were measured and compared to the total isotopic ratio from each. This information helps define the accuracy of the technique and develop a range of isotopic values that are characteristic of the flavor materials true origin or process of manufacture. Previous studies have relied heavily on the isotopic abundance of the bulk material where isotopic abundances of both the radiometric and stable isotopes have been defined. These have been determined on specific isolated compounds, prepared independently, or on the total mixture of compounds making up the flavor or oil. Though the present study looks only at the stable isotopes of carbon, C and C , the potential for the other stable isotopes including deuterium, hydrogen, N , and N to be measured by similar techniques is evident. By developing a fingerprint or multicomponent stable isotope picture based on the primary constituents of a flavor, we hope to better define the characteristics of natural and synthetic flavors. I 3

1 5

12

1 4

Methodology Preparation of Samples. The samples were supplied by the Flavor and Extract Manufacturer's Association of the United States Isotopic Studies Committee and reported as being natural oils and extracts from their respective botanical source. The citrus and peppermint oils were received as neat solutions and were diluted to 2% with 100% residue-analyzed ethyl alcohol (Baker Chemical Co.). This allowed for better chromatography and analyte separation. The vanilla extracts were received as one-fold solutions so no further dilution was necessary. They were, however, extracted with diethyl ether (Baker Chemical Co.) (WARNING: use in a hood away from open flames!) 10 ml of vanilla extract were extracted three times with 10 ml of ether. The combined extracts were dried over anhydrous sodium sulfate and concentrated under a stream of nitrogen to a 5 ml volume. A one milliliter aliquot was removed for analysis.

In Flavor Analysis; Mussinan, C., et al.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 1998.

262

Validation of Naturalness. The peppermint and citrus oil samples had their C activities measured to confirm their modern C activity. These samples were measured using a Packard 1150 liquid scintillation counter (Packard Instrument Co.) (27). Calibration was performed using NIST reference oxalic acid standard. The measured activity levels rangedfrom15.01 to 15.39 disintegrations per minute per gram carbon or 0.25 to 0.26 Bequerels which is equivalent to approximately 98% of the natural level of C activity photosynthesized by plants today. 14

Downloaded by UNIV OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CRUZ on October 14, 2014 | http://pubs.acs.org Publication Date: September 10, 1998 | doi: 10.1021/bk-1998-0705.ch023

14

Quantitative Analysis. To determine the components in complex flavorants and ascertain which are best for component specific isotope analysis the flavor material was first analyzed by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS). The resulting mass spectra yielded not only qualitative analysis but quantitative data based on known standards of identity. The percent concentration of each of the components of interest for each of the flavor materials studied are tabulated and listed in Tables I-IH. The chromatographic conditions were manipulated so that the optimum separation of the components of interest was attained. Lastly, depending on the components found versus those known to exist in a particularflavormaterial, a determination was made as to whether derivatizing it to enhance chromatographic separation was necessary. A Hewlett Packard 6890 gas chromatograph with a 5973 mass selective detector was used to identify and quantify the components used in this study. A NIST 75K spectral library (Hewlett Packard Corp.) was used for spectral identification. A 30 meter, 0.32 millimeter o.d. DB5MS capillary column was used for separation of the components. The temperature program for the citrus and peppermint oils was 60°C for 5 minutes then ramped to 180°C at 3°C per minute, held for 10 minutes, then ramped to 220°C at 5°C per minute. For the vanilla extract the temperature program was 100°C for 5 minutes then ramped to 180°C at 3°C per minute, held for 10 minutes, then ramped to 220°C at 5°C per minute. Citrus and peppermint oils were run as the 2% ethanolic solutions prepared as described above. Vanillin extracts in ether were taken to dryness and rehydrated with 0.5 ml HPLC grade acetonitrile (Baker Chemical Co.). For each analysis, a 0.2 microliter injection was made with a split ratio of 100:1, allowing only 1% of the injected volume to enter the chromatographic column. The analyses were run at constantflowto closely resemble conditions expected in the gas chromatograph/isotope ratio mass spectrometer. 13

Total Stable Carbon Isotope Ratio Analysis. The total 6 C value was determined for each of the twelve citrus oil samples, sixteen peppermint oil samples andfifteenvanilla extracts. For each of the citrus and peppermint oils, one microliter of neat sample was loaded into pyrex ampules. For the vanilla extracts a small aliquot of the extract previously extracted with ether was taken to dryness under a stream of nitrogen. This was extracted with pentane (WARNING: use in a hood awayfromopenflames!)and allowed to form vanillin crystals on a warm watch glass. An amount approximating one milligram was scraped off the watch glass and placed into an ampule. To each of the ampules was added 0.5 grams pre-bumed (800°C) copper oxide wire. The ampules were connected to a diffusion pumped vacuum line and evacuated to less than 10 millitorr for 10 minutes. Those samples exhibiting some volatility at low pressure werefrozenwith

In Flavor Analysis; Mussinan, C., et al.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 1998.

263

s

•B i

•5

I

Retention Time (min.) 5.80 6.03 Source Florida Tangerine-5825 0.10 0.88 Chinese Tangerine-5826 0.20 1.10 Argentinian Tangerine-5827 0.16 0.93 Clementine Mandarin-5828 0.59 Italian Mandarin-5829 0.91 2.47 Tangerine-5830 0.15 0.95 California TangeIo-5831 0.10 0.88 Mandarin-6502 1.98 5.56 Mandarin-6503 0.89 2.48 Tangerine-6504 0.23 2.13 Tangerine-6505 0.11 0.84 Blanks represent below detectable level

-a

-S

i

i 9.88 i 11.18 12.51 13.10 26.80

7.51

7.62

8.25

8.75

9.28

9.64

0.13 0.12 0.18 0.90 0.22 0.19 0.19 0.34 0.24 1.69 0.40

0.20 0.35 0.35 0.16 1.51 0.32 0.21 2.80 1.66 0.36 0.21

1.48 1.43 1.29 1.32 1.19 1.41 1.56 1.61 1.43 1.78 1.49

0.12 0.11 0.10 0.12 0.13 0.11 0.06 0.12 0.12 0.13 0.09

0.05 0.10 0.04 0.08 0.52 0.07 0.05 0.33 0.50

0.27 0.43 0.52 0.11 1.02 0.42 0.32 1.52 2.11 0.92 0.76

0.03

93.21 89.74 91.33 96.00 67.35 91.53 93.52 41.86 65.16 84.95 92.64

2.98 4.97 4.57 0.37 22.86 4.01 2.68 37.35 22.99 3.74 2.46

0.11 0.21 0.17 0.96 0.16 0.10 2.58 1.01 0.26 0.09

99.86 0.33 99.78 1.03 0.24 99.89 99.84 0.21 0.05 0.67 99.84 99.83 0.51 99.85 0.19 0.21 2.17 98.43 0.06 0.90 99.56 98.77 2.60 99.79 0.69

0.76 0.61

0.18 0.29

1.46 5.04 0.18 1.48 5.73 1.46 4.65

0.68 0.58

0.07 0.22 0.25

0.13 0.66 1.45 4.43 1.36 5.12

0.73 0.62

0.16 0.33

1.53 5.57 1.47 4.65

0.79

0.17

0.16 1.48 4.84

1.59 1.91 1.26 1.11 1.61 1.03 1.50 1.45 1.46 1.28 1.12 1.28 1.31 1.03

5.76 6.62 5.61 4.46 5.26 6.28 4.55 4.95 6.42 5.65 4.54 5.11 5.35 4.92

|

00 u 15.56 16.55 19.47 22.05 27.29 29.83 9.90 18.13 17.86 18.37 20.87 22.39 20.28 20.78 17.77 20.28 18.35 21.66 22.54 20.93 22.52

46.96 53.00 43.83 47.02 53.01 53.40 44.20 47.04 50.15 44.31 47.19 52.89 55.09 43.69

1.92 2.28 1.85 2.09 2.11 2.28 2.17 2.07 2.10 1.85 1.70 2.02 2.03 1.95

In Flavor Analysis; Mussinan, C., et al.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 1998.

0.96 1.39 1.54 0.47 0.60 1.01 2.11 1.06 1.44 1.58 1.20 1.56 1.24 1.94

total

0.37

ophyllene

0.59

1

menthol acetate

9.80

"3

pulegone

9.62

1 I 1

men

7.60

1

men thone

cym

Retention Time (min.) 6.02 7.49 Source Yakima-5908 0.45 0.26 Yakima-5909 Yakima-5910 0.71 0.33 Yakima-5911 0.50 0.25 Oregon-5912 Oregon-5913 Oregon-5914 0.61 0.32 Yakima-6167 0.41 0.25 Yakima-6168 Yakima-6169 0.69 0.34 Yakima-6170 0.50 0.26 Oregon-6171 Oregon-6172 Oregon-6173 0.71 0.33 Blanks represent below detectable level

beta -pinene

•a

beta -thujene

Tabic IL Peppermint oil GC/MS component retention times and concentrations (%) a-pinene

Downloaded by UNIV OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CRUZ on October 14, 2014 | http://pubs.acs.org Publication Date: September 10, 1998 | doi: 10.1021/bk-1998-0705.ch023

Table I. Citrus oil G C / M S component retention times and concentrations (%)

83.49 83.24 81.65 83.78 84.98 85.14 83.02 82.31 81.85 82.04 85.24 85.40 86.11 84.37

Downloaded by UNIV OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CRUZ on October 14, 2014 | http://pubs.acs.org Publication Date: September 10, 1998 | doi: 10.1021/bk-1998-0705.ch023

264

Table III. Vanilla extract GC/MS component retention times and concentrations (%)

1 Retention Time (min.) 12.1 12.4 Source Madagascar-6227 4.08 0.56 Madagascar-6228 5.24 0.43 Indonesia-6229 3.57 2.17 Indonesia-6230 4.35 1.11 Comore-6231 5.17 1.85 Comore-6232 4.18 0.81 Mexico-6233 4.78 1.18 Mexico-6234 3.95 0.55 Tonga-5269 3.84 0.61 Madagascar-5270 4.95 0.24 Comore-5271 4.15 1.60 Java-5272 3.29 3.56 Bali-5273 4.55 10.58 Bourdon (Bali)-5274 4.38 3.05 Madagascar-5275 4.42 4.48 Blanks represent below detectable level

13.7 93.60 91.40 91.85 92.97 92.16 88.85 90.41 92.65 91.45 88.33 88.17 77.35 51.67 84.01 82.66

X o

%

17.6

19.9

0.10 0.12 0.14 0.33 0.17 0.15 0.12 0.08 0.37 0.23 0.25 0.20 0.07 0.13 0.25 0.05 0.05 0.23 0.11 4.00 0.12 1.11 0.40 2.43 0.35 0.64 0.11

1.03 1.49 1.33 0.50 0.54 1.71 2.15 1.28 0.22 0.64 0.90 1.07 1.75 2.91 0.67

•c 16.2

1

98.46 97.21 98.09 98.58 99.38 94.43 96.82 97.35 96.19 93.58 94.25 88.31 68.31 94.21 92.30

In Flavor Analysis; Mussinan, C., et al.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 1998.

265

Downloaded by UNIV OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CRUZ on October 14, 2014 | http://pubs.acs.org Publication Date: September 10, 1998 | doi: 10.1021/bk-1998-0705.ch023

liquid nitrogen (WARNING: Use gloves and eyeglasses and do not contact skin!) just prior to evacuating. The ampules were flame sealed and their contents combusted at 575°C for 8 hours (28,29). Duplicates of each sample were prepared in this manner. The resulting carbon dioxide was separated and isolated from other gases cryogenically and sealed in sample bottles to await analysis. The bottles were sequentially analyzed on a Finnigan M A T 251 isotope ratio mass spectrometer. The resulting average carbon isotope ratios for each of the flavor samples are listed under the column marked measured in Table IV. Compound Specific Isotopic Analysis. GC/IRMS analysis was performed using a Finnigan M A T 252 isotope ratio mass spectrometer coupled to a Varian 3400 gas chromatograph. The two instruments were coupled using a unique interface which allowed for the direct combustion of the analyte peaks as they exited the capillary column. Combustion to carbon dioxide was performed by passing the effluent from the capillary column through a tubular furnace 200 millimeters long by 0.5 millimeters i.d. containing a single copper oxide and platinum wire heated to 850°C The resulting carbon dioxide entered the mass spectrometer where the ion currents for the respective masses 46,45, and 44 amu were determined. These corresponded to the mass of carbon dioxide as C 0 0 , C 0 0 , and C 0 0 respectively. From this information the 8 C value was computed by comparison to a standard C 0 reference gas, admitted into the mass spectrometer at predefined intervals, whose isotopic ratio is well defined. The standard C 0 reference gas is maintained at a pressure below 750 psi to prevent formation of liquid C 0 which may effect its isotopic value (30). The Varian gas chromatograph used the same column and conditions as previously described for the HP6890/5973 GC/MS. Citrus and peppermint oils were analyzed as 2% ethanolic solutions seven times each. Injection and split ratios varied depending on whether the major and minor constituents were being analyzed. By adjusting for higher injection volumes and lower split ratios, more sample could be placed onto the chromatographic column with subsequent greater precision with the isotope ratio mass spectrometer. Likewise for major component analysis less sensitivity was required and injection volumes were decreased and split ratios increased. The resultant average stable carbon isotopic ratios for the components of interest for the three flavor materials; citrus oils, rjeppermint oils, and vanilla extracts, underivatized and derivatized, are listed in Tables V, VI, and VII respectively. The one-sigma standard deviations for the same are listed in Tables VIII, IX, and X respectively. 1 2

1 8

1 6

1 3

1 6

1 6

1 2

1 6

1 6

13

2

2

2

Derivatization of Vanillin Samples. To enhance separation of components during gas chromatography, the vanilla extracts were exposed to the derivatizing reagent N , 0 Bis(trimethylsilyl)trifluoroacetamide (BSTFA) containing 1% Trimethyl chlorosilane (TMCS) (Alltech Corp., Deerfield, IL part no. 18089). This is the derivatizing reagent of choice for active hydrogens, carboxylic acids, and phenolic compounds. Derivatization was completed in 15 minutes at 100°C by combining 50 microliters of the vanilla extract, previously extracted with ether and dried over anhydrous sodium sulfate then taken up in HPLC grade acetonitrile (Baker Chemical Co.), with 50 microliters of BSTFA (1%TMCS) reagent (37).

In Flavor Analysis; Mussinan, C., et al.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 1998.

In Flavor Analysis; Mussinan, C., et al.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 1998.

o Source Florida Tangerine-5825 -29.14 Chinese Tangerine-5826 -29.74 Argentinian Tangerine-582 -29.37 Clementine Mandarin-5828 -27.15 Italian Mandarin-5829 -29.11 Tangerine-5830 -29.13 California Tangelo-5831 -27.56 Mandarin-6502 -29.04 Mandarin-6503 -28.35 Tangerine-6504 -30.20 Tangerine-6505 -29.32

1 3

-29.32 -29.55 -29.48 -27.08 -28.85 -29.26 -28.26 -29.02 -28.72 -30.21 -29.17

culated Q -0.18 0.19 -0.11 0.07 0.26 -0.13 -0.70 0.02 -0.37 -0.01 0.15

Source Yakima-5908 Yakima-5909 Yakima-5910 Yakima-5911 Oregon-5912 Oregon-5913 Oregon-5914 Yakima-6167 Yakima-6168 Yakima-6169 Yakima-6170 Oregon-6171 Oregon-6172 Oregon-6173 -27.12 -27.29 -27.50 -27.29 -27.23 -27.12 -27.20 -27.12 -27.17 -27.11 -27.41 -27.40 -27.48 -27.27

5

-26.96 0.16 -27.08 0.21 -27.06 0.44 -27.30 -0.01 -27.04 0.19 -26.80 0.32 -27.06 0.14 -27.03 0.09 -27.10 0.07 -27.05 0.06 -27.33 0.08 -27.10 0.30 -27.41 0.07 -27.07 0.20

I

3 Source .31 Madagascar-6227 11 Madagascar-6228 74 Indonesia-6229 20 Indonesia-6230 .62 Comore-6231 24 Comore-6232 76 Mexico-6233 02 Mexico-6234 90 Tonga-5269 52 Madagascar-5270 33 Comore-5271 90 Java-5272 ,51 Bali-5273 Bourdon (Bali)-52 -21 24 Madagascar-5275 -21 04

1

-20.46 -19.74 -19.82 -20.20 -19.18 -19.08 -19.77 -20.11 -19.73 -20.84 -20.51 -20.22 -19.91 -19.94 -19.94

-0.15 0.37 -0.08 0.00 -0.56 -0.84 -1.01 -1.09 1.17 0.68 0.82 -0.32 -0.40 1.30 1.10

Table IV. Citrus oil, peppermint oil, and vanilla extract comparison between measured 13C/12C values (o/oo PDB) via off-line preparation and calculated 13C/12C values (o/oo PPB) based on recombined GC/IRMS component 13C/12C values (o/oo PPB Citrus oils Vanilla extracts Peppermint oils

Downloaded by UNIV OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CRUZ on October 14, 2014 | http://pubs.acs.org Publication Date: September 10, 1998 | doi: 10.1021/bk-1998-0705.ch023

ference

In Flavor Analysis; Mussinan, C., et al.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 1998.

"3 "3 Retention Time (sec.) 910 942 Source Florida Tangerine-5825 -27.17 -31.06 Chinese Tangerine-5826 -28.05 -31.76 Ai^entinianTangerine-5827 -28.03 -31.44 ClementmeMandarin-5828 -29.02 Italian Mandarin-5829 -27.17 -30.12 Tangerine-5830 -27.64 -31.72 California Tangelo-5831 -25.33 -29.96 Mandarin-6502 -26.33 -29.93 Mandarin-6503 -26.75 -30.12 Tangerine-6504 -28.12 -31.30 Tangerine-6^05 -27.84 -31.84 Blanks represent below detectable level 1100 -30.09 -30.86 -29.82 -25.85 -29.64 -29.70 -28.26 -28.30 -29.05 -30.20 -30.93

1076 -28.63 -29.31 -29.29 -26.22 -27.46 -28.45 -27.57 -25.89 -26.83 -29.25 -28.95

-26.99 -27.27 -26.93 -24.24 -26.73 -26.77 -25.51 -25.58 -26.21 -26.04 -26.56

^ 1120 -30.83 -32.14 -30.78 -28.14 -31.76 -30.39 -31.10 -30.28 -29.10 -29.77 -29.86

"3 1170

p, 1256

1285

go 1386

-29.89 -28.72 -29.34 -29.45 -30.81 -30.34 -29.50 -30.70 -30.88 -29.68 -29.45 -30.27 -25.27 -27.13 -29.60 -29.84 -29.24 -28.64 -29.39 -30.50 -29.67 -29.26 -29.58 -28.91 -27.24 -28.26 -29.45 -27.71 -30.60 -28.65 -29.67 -28.62 -29.28 -28.72 -28.72 -31.43 -30.29 -30.73 -29.03 -29.23 -29.18 -29.68

1228

« -28.64 -29.25 -28.71 -23.18 -28.56 -27.87 -26.97 -28.56 -28.91 -28.89 -27.14

1480

-29.82 -28.99 -30.54 -25.59 -30.61 -28.70 -27.51 -29.85 -30.83 -29.35 -28.40

1515

-30.28 -30.37 -31.94 -32.80 -29.43 -30.93 -29.00 -28.50 -28.47 -30.65 -32.29

2586

l & l f l f c i *f - , . ?

.S

Table V . Citrus oil GC/IRMS component retention times and average 13C/12C values (o/oo PDB)

Downloaded by UNIV OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CRUZ on October 14, 2014 | http://pubs.acs.org Publication Date: September 10, 1998 | doi: 10.1021/bk-1998-0705.ch023

268

cineol

menthor

menthol

pulegon

menthol acetate

caryoph yllene

germaci

1785

2000

2203

2585

2638

-29.69 -25.59 -27.95 -26.81 -25.87 -29.01 -31.47 -28.97 -26.43 -28.44 -29.99 -26.60 -29.06 -29.69 -27.10 -28.76 -30.33 -27.49 -29.51

-25.94 -26.52 -26.03 -26.39 -26.47 -26.13 -26.19 -26.10 -26.32 -26.09 -26.63 -26.53 -26.96 -26.26

-27.07 -27.18 -27.10 -27.27 -27.17 -26.92 -27.15 -27.08 -27.32 -27.11 -27.29 -27.20 -27.39 -27.17

-25.37 -25.62 -26.01 -25.81 -25.27 -25.36 -25.70 -25.04 -25.98 -26.01 -25.97 -26.22 -25.62 -25.51

-28.61 -28.84 -28.82 -29.94 -29.74 -29.18 -29.83 -29.01 -28.83 -28.95 -29.81 -29.90 -30.19 -29.77

-24.86 -24.67 -24.81 -25.35 -24.54 -24.05 -24.70 -25.48 -24.99 -24.95 -25.06 -24.83 -25.06 -24.74

-27.57 -27.82 -26.36 -28.52

cymene

1717

beta-pirn

1300

beta-thuj

Retention Time (sec.) Source Yakima-5908 Yakima-5909 Yakima-5910

alpha-pi nene

Downloaded by UNIV OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CRUZ on October 14, 2014 | http://pubs.acs.org Publication Date: September 10, 1998 | doi: 10.1021/bk-1998-0705.ch023

Table VI. Peppermint oil GC/IRMS component retention timea and average 13C/12C values (o/oo PPB)

j

942

1076

1100

1256

1285

1

Yakima-5911 Orcgon-5912 Oregon-5913 Oregon-5914 -27.82 -25.37 Yakirna-6167 -29.56 -27.81 Yakima-6168 Yakima-6169 -29.39 -26.72 Yakima-6170 -28.59 -26.30 Oregon-6171 Oregon-6172 Oregon-6173 -28.61 -26.88 Blanks represent below detectable level

B

u

-27.40 -30.18 -29.73 -26.78 -26.61 -29.25 -28.95 -27.62 -26.06 -29.14 -33.83 -28.83 -29.98 -25.83 -28.96 -30.56 -31.01 -26.32 -29.29 -31.56 -29.03 -28.62 -25.56 -29.31

g

-26.53 -26.29 -26.06 -26.08 -26.91 -25.56 -27.55 -26.55 -29.19 -24.73

Table VII. Vanilla extract GC/IRMS underivatized and derivatized component retention times and average 13C/12C values (o/oo PPB) derivatized compounds

underivatized compounds

•8

1

1 JS x

AC O 1560 1570 Retention Time (sec.) Source Madagascar-6227 -18.65 -20.67 Madagascar-6228 -17.26 -20.94 Indonesia-6229 -18.04 -22.30 Indonesia-6230 -17.82 -25.22 Comore-6231 -19.43 Comore-6232 -16.67 -21.38 Mexico-6233 -17.49 -23.45 Mexico-6234 -16.97 -21.30 Tonga-5269 -19.97 -20.72 Madagascar-5270 -20.87 -22.31 Comore-5271 -20.41 -20.29 Java-5272 -21.12 -20.66 Bali-5273 -21.13 -20.07 Bourdon (Bah>5274 -19.38 -18.65 Madagascar-5275 -19.98 -20.06 Blanks represent below detectable level

s

a.

IE O

1

O

1660

1792

1990

2150

1566

1697

2014

2190

2215

2688

-20.49 -19.83 -19.76 -20.22 -19.53 -19.10 -19.75 -20.21 -19.67 -20.83 -20.40 -19.84 -19.35 -19.69 -19.80

-23.20 -24.02 -25.61 -26.38 -25.06 -23.16 -25.03 -26.38 -31.80

-20.31 -19.80 -19.14 -20.21 -20.14 -18.26 -19.72 -20.27 -24.87 -25.68 -24.52 -23.67 -20.21 -22.00 -24.10

-24.73 -24.21 -23.56 -23.13 -21.90 -22.01 -24.87 -22.09 -26.80 -20.49 -28.54 -32.06 -29.80 -27.07 -30.94

-27.14 -27.00 -27.05 -27.72 -26.61 -26.06 -26.68 -26.37 -28.47 -27.61 -27.29 -27.57 -28.71 -28.75 -28.10

-29.02 -30.15 -30.43 -30.73 -30.30 -29.87 -30.13 -29.00 -27.60 -25.60 -29.18 -29.91 -29.74 -28.32 -28.86

-27.57 -27.92 -27.98 -28.56 -27.40 -27.53 -27.74 -27.87 -27.06 -27.57 -26.44 -26.46 -26.32 -26.73 -27.20

-35.68 -34.21 -38.01 •38.80 -37.66

-32.51 -33.49 -34.78 -34.03 -34.83 -29.71 -33.85 -28.55 -37.07 -37.73 -36.59 -32.47 -34.00 -33.29 -38.96

-35.11 -34.07 -34.34 -34.26 -35.87 -33.66 -34.05 -36.08 -30.78 -33.63 -33.46 -33.04 -30.89 -32.48 -32.23

-30.68 -23.20 -23.76 -22.67 -23.96

-38.40 -32.11 -30.73 -29.79 -29.85 -30.81 -31.35 -25.95

In Flavor Analysis; Mussinan, C., et al.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 1998.

In Flavor Analysis; Mussinan, C., et al.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 1998.

I | | |

1

*

s

I=

Retention Time (sec.) 910 942 1076 1100 1120 1170 1228 1256 1285 1386 1480 1515 2586 Source Florida Tangerine-5825 0.76 0.82 0.85 0.27 0.41 0.35 1.74 0.14 0.21 0.92 2.61 4.87 Chinese Tangerine-5826 1.13 0.49 0.36 0.49 0.36 1.04 0.78 0.10 0.68 0.31 0.45 0.21 Argentinian Tangerine-582 0.74 0.35 0.68 0.45 0.20 0.87 1.00 0.08 0.48 0.60 4.80 0.04 Clementine Mandarin-5828 0.28 0.31 0.72 0.31 0.49 0.57 1.41 0.25 0.95 1.09 Italian Mandarin-5829 0.13 1.40 0.32 0.19 0.23 0.43 0.28 1.01 0.50 0.12 0.65 3.13 0.13 Tangerine-5830 0.19 0.61 0.17 0.13 0.13 0.86 1.25 0.76 2.21 0.82 0.31 0.30 California Tangelo-5831 1.12 0.38 0.57 0.18 0.18 2.01 1.09 0.00 3.08 0.98 0.07 Mandarin-6502 0.28 0.19 0.41 0.25 0.33 0.72 0.44 0.59 0.35 0.19 0.54 3.50 1.12 Mandarin-6503 0.28 0.74 0.55 0.27 0.45 2.53 0.15 0.84 0.41 0.41 1.51 5.39 1.01 Tangerine-6504 1.31 0.36 0.14 0.32 0.55 0.84 1.10 0.09 0.65 0.35 0.12 Tangerine-6505 1.57 0.70 0.41 0.57 1.31 1.06 1.55 1.75 0.34 1.35 0.53 0.16 Blanks represent below detectable level

J

•s

Table VIII. Citrus oil GC/IRMS component retention times and 13C/12C values (o/oo PDB) standard deviations

Downloaded by UNIV OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CRUZ on October 14, 2014 | http://pubs.acs.org Publication Date: September 10, 1998 | doi: 10.1021/bk-1998-0705.ch023

270

1256

1.29

0.42

0.50

1.21 0.33

5.10 1.06

1.47 0.84

0.19 0.59 0.28 0.64

2.30 0.95

1.74 0.07

2.31 1.50 0.50

1.90 0.51 0.20

1.16 2.02

3.86 0.77

0.28 0.66

0.39 0.49

0.95

2.36

0.90

2.45 0.60

1300

uyophyl lene

1|

.B 1285

enthol a

Retention Time (sec.) 1076 Source Yakima-5908 2.15 1.58 Yakima-5909 Yakima-5910 0.63 0.69 Yakima-5911 2.65 0.34 Oregon-5912 Oregon-5913 Oregon-5914 3.14 1.80 Yakima-6167 1.31 0.20 Yakima-6168 Yakima-6169 1.67 0.47 Yakima-6170 2.85 1.63 Oregon-6171 Oregon-6172 Oregon-6173 1.64 0.52 Blanks represent below detectable level

|

X 1100

llegone

I

enthol

u

enthone

Downloaded by UNIV OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CRUZ on October 14, 2014 | http://pubs.acs.org Publication Date: September 10, 1998 | doi: 10.1021/bk-1998-0705.ch023

73 942

8

:ta-pincn

pha-pinc

Tnple IX Peppermint oil GC/IRMS component retention times «nd 13C/12C values (o/oo PDB) «t»n5274 1.07 1.03 Madagascar-5275 0.79 1.09 Blanks represent below detectable level

.9

1

I

1660

1792

0.12 0.12 0.19 0.20 0.24 0.39 0.13 0.12 0.62 0.16 0.41 0.23 0.42 0.35 0.28

1.39 3.94 1.21 1.58 3.23 0.37 1.18 1.39 4.20 5.13 0.86 0.99 0.75 1.27

.8 X

I 1990 1.29 1.56 0.17 1.01 1.03 1.12 2.82 0.55 2.46 2.50 3.48 3.13 3.57 3.31 3.74

X

I

2150

1566

1697

2014

2190

2215

2688

2.75 2.65 2.31 1.97 0.91 2.15 3.28 2.10 4.31

0.32 0.54 0.42 0.52 0.27 0.22 0.47 0.49 0.44 0.39 0.20 0.37 0.42 0.38 0.32

0.21 0.62 0.32 0.49 0.06 0.25 0.16 0.64 0.57 0.43 0.16 020 0.19 0.36 0.38

0.35 0.56 0.41 0.25 0.04 0.03 0.08 0.10 0.15 0.16 0.37 0.17 0.25 0.25 1.22

4.50 6.84 0.96 2.31

3.18 0.74 0.58 0.01

0.10 0.74 0.48 0.18 0.46 0.27 0.45 0.24 2.24 0.44 1.85 1.55 1.11 0.75 0.77

4.29

9.43 1.61

4.17 2.05 1.60 1.22 0.70 3.20 2.00 1.10

In Flavor Analysis; Mussinan, C., et al.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 1998.

1.24 0.20 0.40 2.21 2.31 0.53 0.67 0.26 0.63 1.48

271

Terminology. Isotopic abundances are typically expressed in delta notation (6) and written relative to the heavier mass isotope. The 6 value is defined as the per mil (%o) deviation of the sample isotopic ratio versus that of the PDB standard: the Cretaceous belemnite, Belemnitilla americana, which represents the zero point for the 8 C scale (52). The 8 value is expressed by 13

Downloaded by UNIV OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CRUZ on October 14, 2014 | http://pubs.acs.org Publication Date: September 10, 1998 | doi: 10.1021/bk-1998-0705.ch023

°/oo = [CC/^Q^^C^C)^

- 1] x 10

3

Results and Discussion To achieve an accurate comparison of the total isotopic signature of a flavor oil or extract and its' chemical components, one must first be able to separate the components adequately to minimize overlap and interferences of their respective isotopic values. Figures 1-4 show typical GC traces for the natural citrus oils, peppermint oils, and vanilla extracts; underivatized and derivatized respectively. The chemical components separated and quantified, for their content and isotopic abundance, in the citrus oils were a- and P-pinene, a- and P-thujene, P-myrcene,a-phellandrene, a- and y-terpinene, cymene, limonene, terpinolene, linalool, and caryophyllene. For the peppermint oils a- and Ppinene, P-thujene, cymene, limonene, cineol, menthone, menthol, pulegone, menthyl acetate, caryophyllene, and germacrene were measured. In the vanilla extracts p-hydroxy benzaldehyde, p-hydroxy benzoic acid, vanillin, vanillic acid, o-vanillin and syringaldehyde were determined. After manipulation of the chromatographic conditions, good separation of the components were achieved. Quantitation was performed based on known standards. Relative percent concentrations of the components identified are listed for the three flavors materials in Tables I-III. As seen in these tables, each oil or extract contians a major component: limonene in the citrus oils, menthol in the peppermint oils, and vanillin in the vanilla extracts. These major components range in concentration between 17 and 96 percent, while minor or trace components are typically less than 6%. Once the chromatographic conditions were optimized, they were transferred to the GC/IRMS instrument for similar component separation. Figures 5-8 portray the chromatographic separation of the components of interest using the Finnigan 252 GC/IRMS for the natural citrus oils, peppermint oils, and vanilla extracts; underivatized and derivatized respectively. The major components aforementioned presented a problem for their measurement along with the measurement of the trace constituents in the flavor. The GC/IRMS features a back-flushing, capability which prevents the large solvent peak from reaching and exhausting the combustion interface reagents. This feature can also be initiated during the run to remove a large peak. However, we found that during the onset and termination of back-flushing the baseline would fluctuate due to the flow variation and inaccurate isotopic ratios could be observed. We therefore ran our chromatograms with only solvent back-flushing but ran the methods in a normal mode and an enhanced mode of operation. The normal mode brought the major peaks into a normal range of voltage for accurate isotopic measurement, and the enhanced mode increased sensitivity 10 to 100 fold by reducing split ratios and increasing injection volumes. Even though the major peaks were unmeasurable due to saturation of the

In Flavor Analysis; Mussinan, C., et al.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 1998.

Downloaded by UNIV OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CRUZ on October 14, 2014 | http://pubs.acs.org Publication Date: September 10, 1998 | doi: 10.1021/bk-1998-0705.ch023

272

•s

6000 40002000 012

14 Time (min)

Figure 1. GC spectrum of citrus oilfromHP GC/MS

In Flavor Analysis; Mussinan, C., et al.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 1998.

Downloaded by UNIV OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CRUZ on October 14, 2014 | http://pubs.acs.org Publication Date: September 10, 1998 | doi: 10.1021/bk-1998-0705.ch023

273

In Flavor Analysis; Mussinan, C., et al.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 1998.

Downloaded by UNIV OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CRUZ on October 14, 2014 | http://pubs.acs.org Publication Date: September 10, 1998 | doi: 10.1021/bk-1998-0705.ch023

274

In Flavor Analysis; Mussinan, C., et al.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 1998.

275

90000 80000 70000 60000

Downloaded by UNIV OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CRUZ on October 14, 2014 | http://pubs.acs.org Publication Date: September 10, 1998 | doi: 10.1021/bk-1998-0705.ch023

50000 40000 30000 20000

JLJL * _ J _

10000 0

1

6

8

1

1

10

1

I I

Jj

I I

12

1

14

1

1

1

1

16

ill

1

18

1

20

1

1

22

1

!

24

1

1

1

26

1—

28

Time (min)

Figure 4. GC spectrum of derivatized vanilla extractfromHP GC/MS

1.2-

1.0

12

0.8-

I

f

I

2

0.6

c 3

0.4-j

0.2

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

Time (sec)

Figure 5. GC spectrum of citrus oilfromFinnigan MAT 252 GC/IRMS

In Flavor Analysis; Mussinan, C., et al.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 1998.

2200

In Flavor Analysis; Mussinan, C., et al.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 1998.

Ι

Κ) Κ)

eg'

τι

I3

2.

S

*T3

Ό

3 8,

Ό

p\

f

Downloaded by UNIV OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CRUZ on October 14, 2014 | http://pubs.acs.org Publication Date: September 10, 1998 | doi: 10.1021/bk-1998-0705.ch023

OS

p-hydroxy benzoic acid

Internal standard

Downloaded by UNIV OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CRUZ on October 14, 2014 | http://pubs.acs.org Publication Date: September 10, 1998 | doi: 10.1021/bk-1998-0705.ch023

277

i 4 "I

J

1

i J : I 15

r

i

<

T

1

1

i

800

1000

1200

1400

I 1

'8

1

UiL

1600

1

1

1

r

1800

2000

2200

2400

Time (sec)

Figure 7. GC spectrum of vanila extractfromFinnigan MAT 252 GC/IRMS

In Flavor Analysis; Mussinan, C., et al.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 1998.

In Flavor Analysis; Mussinan, C., et al.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 1998.

Mass 44 (volts)

Downloaded by UNIV OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CRUZ on October 14, 2014 | http://pubs.acs.org Publication Date: September 10, 1998 | doi: 10.1021/bk-1998-0705.ch023

279

Faraday collectors, the minor peaks were measured with reasonable accuracy and precision. Tables V, VI, and V H list the average 5 C values from a niinimum of seven replicate analyses using the GC/IRMS technique. The minor and major analytes are grouped together within each flavor group even though they were measured separately. Blanks appear where the component of interest was below detectable levels. The derivatization of the vanilla extracts was necessary because of the difficulty of chromatographing some of the known components in vanilla extract. Even though we were able to separate the components of interest without derivatization, a comparison of the methods was made. Derivatization enhanced the chromatography by yielding better resolution of the components both in peak height and separation. Acidic components such as vanillic acid and p-hydroxy benzoic acid were visibly greater in concentration when derivatized. The major drawback to derivatization is the correction for additional carbon atoms to each of the components. Based on the structural information provided by the GC/MS analysis, we were able to decipher which components had single or doubly substituted trimethylsilyl functionalities. Based on the original carbon content, the post-derivatization carbon content, and the stable isotopic value of the BSTFA derivatizing reagent a corrective algorithm to calculate the origin carbon isotopic ratio value was derived. The right hand columns of Table VII indicate the more depleted 8 C values expected for the derivatized components of the vanilla extracts. The left hand columns of Table XI list the back calculated 5 C values based on the derivatized samples. The right hand columns of Table X I are the differences between the actual measured component specific 5 C for the vanilla extracts and those computed from the derivatized samples. As expected, there is good agreement between the underivatized and derivatized values for components of higher concentration. Vanillin and para-hydroxy benzaldehyde, the two largest components in the vanilla extracts, have differences usually less than 1 /oo and only one sample exceeds 2 /oo. The trace components exhibit deviations greater than 5 °/oo. Hence the applicability of this technique for trace components is questionable. The large deviations most likely are due to variation in the trimethylsilyl substitutions in the extremely low concentration components. We observed in some instances that incomplete substitution of the hydroxy groups, on some components, occurred despite a long derivatization time. These trace components may be masked or sterically hindered by the higher concentration major components within the extract. Once the concentration of each flavor component was established and its stable carbon isotope ratio accurately measured, we used the technique of mass balance to arrive at a calculated 5 C value based on the GC/MS and GC/IRMS data. This technique recombined the isotopic values, on a carbon equivalent basis, back into their origin mixture. This data is tabulated in the column heading calculated in Table IV for each of the oils or extracts and their respective sample entries. A comparison of the 251 method data, generated by off-line combustion and clean-up of the total extract, and the 252 method data which is a re-combination of the component specific isotopic data show very good agreement. The citrus oils show an average difference of approximately 0.2 /oo between the two methods, and the peppermint oils exhibit an average difference of less than 0.18 /oo between them. This is extremely good agreement for isotopic analysis which can sometimes reveal differences this great between two measurement of

Downloaded by UNIV OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CRUZ on October 14, 2014 | http://pubs.acs.org Publication Date: September 10, 1998 | doi: 10.1021/bk-1998-0705.ch023

13

13

13

13

13

In Flavor Analysis; Mussinan, C., et al.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 1998.

Table XI. Vanilla extract GC/IRMS calculated 13C/12C values (o/oo PDB) from derivatized compounds versus measured 13C/12C values (o/oo PDB) from underivatized compounds calculated from derivatized compounds

orth

1

JS

ac l

c

JB ac o L

'c >

6

1660

1792

1990

2150

1566

1697

-19.68 -20.19 -20.28 -21.10 -19.45 -19.63 -19.93 -20.12 -18.95 -19.69 -18.07 -18.10 -17.90 -18.49 -19.16

-26.86 -24.13 -31.20 -32.65 -30.55

-20.98 -22.81 -25.20 -23.80 -25.29 -15.78 -23.47 -13.62 -29.46 -30.68 -28.55 -20.90 -23.75 -22.44 -32.96

-25.80 -23.88 -24.39 -24.23 -27.21 -23.12 -23.84 -27.61 -17.77 -23.06 -22.75 -21.97 -17.97 -20.92 -20.46

0.43 1.61 0.90 2.09 -1.11 0.86 0.92 1.00 1.00 -1.13 -1.12 -1.43 0.19 1.99 0.47

1.10 2.43 1.48 -1.01

-31.92 -20.25 -17.68 -15.93 -16.05 -17.82 -18.83 -8.80

1.59 -0.10 0.44 -0.99 -5.44 1.69 2.37 2.72 2.12 1.46

c

1 2014

izoic aci

zaldehy

."2 S

T3

orth

&

Retention Time (sec.) 1560 1570 Source Madagascar-6227 -19.08 -21.76 Madagascar-6228 -18.87 -23.37 Indonesia-6229 -18.94 -23.77 Indonesia-6230 -19.91 -24.21 -18.32 -23.59 Comore-6231 Comore-6232 -17.53 -22.97 -18.42 -23.35 Mexico-6233 Mexico-6234 -17.97 -21.74 -20.97 -19.73 Tonga-5269 -19.74 -16.87 Madagascar-5270 -19.29 -21.98 Comore-5271 Java-5272 -19.69 -23.03 -21.32 -22.78 Bali-5273 Bourdon (Bali)-5274 -21.37 -20.76 Madagascar-5275 -20.44 -21.52 Blanks represent below detectable level

3

vani

1

•a •«3 00 vani

JJ

ac o

!

c

difference of calculated and measured

•a

zoic aci

•o

zaldehy

Downloaded by UNIV OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CRUZ on October 14, 2014 | http://pubs.acs.org Publication Date: September 10, 1998 | doi: 10.1021/bk-1998-0705.ch023

280

1 •a 2

JL ac l

'1 >

2190

2215

2688

& C

3.66 -0.81 0.11 0.36 5.59 0.52 6.27 0.88 5.49 -0.08 0.53 6.89 0.18 -0.09 -0.71 -11.55 -1.14 -2.33 -14.75 -1.74 -7.15 -1.45 -5.94 -1.20 -3.84 -0.64 -15.16

In Flavor Analysis; Mussinan, C., et al.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 1998.

o S3

1.07 0.67 3.01 -0.33 0.82 6.06 1.10 3.60 5.31 5.15 -2.47 1.11 3.75 -1.03 5.52 -6.65 4.59 -9.02 5.00 2.57 4.03 -5.79 -2.76 -10.09 3.54 -11.83 0.44 -6.15 8.86 -10.48

281

the same sample by off-line preparative methods. The vanilla extract samples, though not nearly as close in comparison of the two methods, do exhibit differences less than 0.7 /oo on average. This may be a consequence of the difference in the preparative methods used to isolate crystalline vanillin which are not used in GC/IRMS component analysis. Generally, the comparison of these methods of isotopic analysis confirm the ability of the GC/IRMS technique to accurately define single component 5 C values.

Downloaded by UNIV OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CRUZ on October 14, 2014 | http://pubs.acs.org Publication Date: September 10, 1998 | doi: 10.1021/bk-1998-0705.ch023

1 3

Natural Profiles. As the second goal of this study, it was hoped that a carbon isotope ratio profile of the principle constituents for the natural flavor materials studied could be developed. Tables V, VI, and V H present the average 8 C values for each of the flavor constituents separated from each of the naturally derived samples. This data is graphically displayed in Figures 9-11. The data is presented as series of lines with sample components along the x-axis and their respective 5 C values along the z-axis for each of the samples within a flavor group. Samples are identified as to their source and identification number. The range of 5 C values between samples and their respective components is well within the range expected for botanically derived materials. This data gives some indication of the natural isotopic variation existing in nature for these flavor materials based on the differences in some of the major biochemical components such as lipids and carbohydrates (33) and fatty acids (34). The isotopic abundance of these individual constituents also indicate the consistency within a particular oil or extract as specific compounds are biosynthesized. As indicated in Figure 9, citrus oils derived from various natural sources of considerable geographical variation portray a consistency across the thirteen components analyzed that could be used in defining natural origin. The trend is similar in Figure 10, although only two distinct geographic origins are indicated and these are very proximal to one another. As indicated, both the major and minor components here have similar trends in their respective isotopic abundance. The component menthyl acetate was found to be depleted in its 5 C value as indicated by previous investigations of peppermint oils (35). For the vanilla extracts, the trends are not quite as consistent as for the oils as indicated in Figure 11. Source variation and very low concentrations of the minor components can account for some of the variation in these natural vanilla extract profiles. Though the profiles vary more than the citrus and peppermint profiles from one sample to another, the closeness to the total 6 C value and good agreement with previous research (36) indicate the potential for use in defining a natural isotopic profile for vanilla derived from natural sources. 13

1 3

13

1 3

13

Conclusion This study examined the accuracy of the hyphenated technique of gas chromatography and isotope ratio mass spectrometry to define individual component isotopic abundances which could be used to develop a pattern of isotopic values for specific flavor materials. Once defined these could be used as patterns of acceptance similar to total isotopic ratios now used for specific flavor compounds to judge their naturalness. To the first goal, the data presented here substantiates the capability of the GC/IRMS technique for accurately portraying the carbon isotopic ratios for selected components found in natural citrus oil, peppermint oil, and vanilla extracts. The comparison of two methods, one measuring the

In Flavor Analysis; Mussinan, C., et al.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 1998.

Downloaded by UNIV OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CRUZ on October 14, 2014 | http://pubs.acs.org Publication Date: September 10, 1998 | doi: 10.1021/bk-1998-0705.ch023

Figure 9. Component and 8 C profile of citrus oils

In Flavor Analysis; Mussinan, C., et al.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 1998.

Downloaded by UNIV OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CRUZ on October 14, 2014 | http://pubs.acs.org Publication Date: September 10, 1998 | doi: 10.1021/bk-1998-0705.ch023

283

In Flavor Analysis; Mussinan, C., et al.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 1998.

Downloaded by UNIV OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CRUZ on October 14, 2014 | http://pubs.acs.org Publication Date: September 10, 1998 | doi: 10.1021/bk-1998-0705.ch023

284

Figure 11. Component and 8 C profile of vanilla extracts

In Flavor Analysis; Mussinan, C., et al.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 1998.

Downloaded by UNIV OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CRUZ on October 14, 2014 | http://pubs.acs.org Publication Date: September 10, 1998 | doi: 10.1021/bk-1998-0705.ch023

285 total carbon isotopic value by off-line preparation and measurement on a Finnigan 251 isotope ratio mass spectrometer (IRMS), while the other performed gas chromatographic component separation with subsequent isotope ratio measurement, on the Finnigan 252 GC/IRMS, resulted in a variance of 0.7 /oo or less. Each of the flavor materials tested had primary components which could be expected to generate precise data based on their high concentrations. However, replicate analyses performed on the GC/IRMS indicate that even those components found at less than 1% concentration exhibit very low standard deviations and portray their isotopic ratios accurately. This indicates that by this technique we can demonstrate an increased capability to detect adulteration of flavors. The profiles shown in Figures 9 through 11 portray an isotopic fingerprint to confirm the naturalness of these flavor materials. The samples measured here were all of natural origin so only natural profiles or fingerprints can be revealed here. However, it is with considerable certainty that the profiles, of these same flavor materials, from synthetic origins, will differ significantly. This is based on numerous measurements of the total carbon isotopic ratios of synthetic flavor compounds which differ significantly from those of natural origin (37,72). It is anticipated that the individual component carbon isotope ratios will differ not only isotopically but also in relative concentration of the components typically found. This leads to the potential for applying multi-component isotope ratios to chemometric analysis. This should help to develop criteria best suited for different flavor materials to authenticate naturalness and uncover adulteration. The future potential for the method of gas chromatography/isotope ratio mass spectrometry lies in its applicability to the broad range of flavors and flavor compounds that exist in our foods and beverages. Because of the minute quantities required for determination of component specific isotope ratios, typically nanogram to picograms measured, the possibility exists for direct on-line analysis of shelf products using the new techniques of sample preparation and clean-up. Though this study was limited to measurement of carbon isotopes, nitrogen isotopes can presently be measured by the same technique and research is already underway to determine the hydrogen isotopes following chromatographic separation (38-40). The capability to reveal adulteration is presently available by applying both stable and radiometric analysis to bulk samples and isolates. The added capability to measure C C and soon, D/H ratios, as well as confirm the C or H activity of individual components by chromatographic separation will allow unprecedented confirmation of natural flavors and flavor ingredients. 1 3

/ 1 2

l 4

3

Literature Cited 1. Martin, G.E.; Noakes, J.E.; Culp, R.A. unpublished data. 2. Koziet, J.; Rossman, A.; Martin, G.J.; Ashurst, P.R. Anal. Chim. Acta. 1993, 271, 31-38. 3. White, J.W.; Winters, K. J. Assoc. Off. Anal. Chem. 1989, 72, 907-911. 4. Hoffman, P.G.; Salb, M . J. Assoc. Off. Anal. Chem. 1980, 63, 1181-1183. 5. Martin, G.E.; Noakes, J.E.; Alfonso, F.C.; Figert, D . M . J. Assoc. Off. Anal. Chem. 1981, 64, 1142-1144.

In Flavor Analysis; Mussinan, C., et al.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 1998.

286

Downloaded by UNIV OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CRUZ on October 14, 2014 | http://pubs.acs.org Publication Date: September 10, 1998 | doi: 10.1021/bk-1998-0705.ch023

6. 7. 8. 9.

Culp, R.A.; Noakes, J.E. J. Agric. Food Chem. 1990, 38, 1249-1255. Martin, G.G.; Hanote, V.; Lees, M.; Martin, Y.L. J. A.O.A.C. Intl. 1996, 79, 62-72. Allen, A. B. J. Agric. Food Chem. 1961, 9, 294-295. Martin, G.E.; Krueger, H.W.; Burggraff, J.M. J. Assoc. Off. Anal. Chem. 1985, 68, 440-452. 10. Neary, M.; Spaulding, J.D.; Noakes, J.E.; Culp, R.A. J. Agric. Food Chem. 1997, 45, 2153-2157. 11. Bricout, J.; Koziet, J. J. Agric. Food Chem. 1987, 35, 758-760. 12. Bricout, J.; Koziet, J. In Flavors of Foods and Beverages, Chemistry and Technology, Charalambous, G.; Inglett, F.E.; Eds.; Academic Press: New York, 1978; 199-208. 13. Byrne, B.; Wengenroth, K.J.; Krueger, D.A. J. Agric. Food Chem. 1986, 34, 736738. 14. Doner, L.W.; Bills, D.D. J. Assoc. Off. Anal. Chem. 1982, 65, 608-610. 15. Martin, G.J.; Guillou,C.;Martin, M.L.; Cabanis, M.T.; Tep, Y.; Aerny, J. J. Agric. Food Chem. 1988, 36, 316-322. 16. Hoffman, P.G.; Salb, M. J. Agric. Food Chem. 1979, 27, 352-355. 17. Santrock, J.; Studley, S.; Hayes, J.M. Anal. Chem. 1985, 57, 1444-1448. 18. Brand, W.A.; Rautenschlein, M.; Habfast, K.; Ricci, M.; Freeman, K.L.; Hayes, J. Finnigan Corp. Publ. 1989. 19. Rautenschlein, M.; Habfast, K; Brand, W. In Stable Isotopes in Pediatric Nutritional and Metabolic Research, Proceedings, 1989, 1-14.

20. Schmidt, H.L.; Butzenlechner, M.; Rossman, A.; Schwarz, S.; Kexel, H.; Kempe, K. Z. Lebensm. Unters. Forsch. 1993, 196, 105-110. 21. Caer, V.; Trierweiler, M.; Martin, G.J.; Martin, M.L. Anal. Chem. 1991, 63, 23062313. 22. Martin, G.J.; Remaud, G. Flav.Frag. J. 1993, 8, 97-107. 23. Martin, G.J.; Hanneguelle, S.; Remaud, G. Ital. J. Food Sci. 1993, 3, 191-213. 24. Silfer, J.A.; Engel, M.H.; Macko, S.A.; Jumeau, E.J. Anal. Chem. 1991, 63, 370374. 25. Hayes, J.M.; Freeman, K.H.; Popp, B.N.; Hoham, C.H. Org. Geochem. 1990, 1-32. 26. Weilacher, T.; Gleixner, G.; Schmidt, H.L. Phytochem. 1996, 41, 1073-1077. 27. Noakes, J.E.; Kim, S.M.; Stipp, J.J. In Sixth International Symposium on Radiocarbon Dating and Tritium, Proceedings of USAEC Conference 650-652, 1965; 68-92. 28. Culp, R.A.; Noakes, J.E. J. Agric. Food Chem. 1992, 40, 1892-1897. 29. Boutton, T.W.; Wong, W.W.; Hachey, D.L.; Lee, L.S.; Cabrera, M.P.; Klein, P. Anal. Chem. 1983, 55, 1832-1833. 30. Coplen, T; Kendall, C. Anal. Chem. 1982, 2611-2612. 31. Goni, M.A.; Eglinton, T.I. Org. Geochem. 1996, 24, 601-615. 32. Craig, H. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 1957, 12, 133-149. 33. DeNiro, M.J.; Epstein, S. Science 1977, 197, 261-263. 34. Monson, K.D.; Hayes, J.M. J. Biol. Chem. 1982, 257, 5568-5575. 35. Faber, B.; Krause, B.; Dietrich, A. Mosandl, A. J. Essent. Oil Res. 1995, 7, 123131.

In Flavor Analysis; Mussinan, C., et al.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 1998.

287

Downloaded by UNIV OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CRUZ on October 14, 2014 | http://pubs.acs.org Publication Date: September 10, 1998 | doi: 10.1021/bk-1998-0705.ch023

36. Kaunzinger, A.; Juchelka, D.; Mosandl, A. J. Agric. Food Chem. 1997, 45, 17521757. 37. Bricout, J. In Stable Isotopes, Conference Procedures; Schmidt, H.L., Forstel, H., Heinzinger, K., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, 1982; 483-494. 38. Tobias, H.J.; Brenna, J.T. Anal. Chem. 1996, 68, 3002-2007. 39. Prosser, S.J.; Scrimgeour, C.M. Anal. Chem. 1996, 67, 1992-1997. 40. Tobias, H.J.; Goodman, K.J.; Blacken, C.E.; Brenna, J.T. Anal.Chem. 1995, 67, 2486-2492.

In Flavor Analysis; Mussinan, C., et al.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 1998.